(17-05-2013 12:16 PM)earmuffs Wrote: Did he say anything that could be deemed "hate speech" (which isn't one of the 4 forum rules btw)?
Yes his name is not exactly flattering BUT that afterall it's his opinion and he is entitled to it, just as you (and I) are entitled to ours that his opinion is probably fucking stupid.

At least let him explain his name considering it could mean any number of things.
ie: He could blame Obama (who is black) for ruining the country.
Which would be a political opinion.

If we're going to ban people for things not included within the 4 forum rules can we ban I&I, nobody will miss him.

He was originally banned last week for sockpuppetry, and now its for flouting the ban. This is his 4th account I've banned in less than a week.

If these accounts happened to have the same IP as I&I nobody would be the wiser.... if you get my meaning... just throwing it out there... hint hint wink wink...

I seriously would appreciate that 'why banned' thread being maintained for the sake of good governance (fairness, accountability and transparency).

Cheers
DLJ

That thread was a bad idea to begin with its so outdated thats its really not worth starting up again. As for accountability ive announced the reasons why his accounts were banned multiple times over multiple threads its not been done in secret, every baning has always been out in the open.

(18-05-2013 06:27 AM)FSM_scot Wrote: That thread was a bad idea to begin with its so outdated thats its really not worth starting up again. As for accountability ive announced the reasons why his accounts were banned multiple times over multiple threads its not been done in secret, every banning has always been out in the open.
...

Accepted. That covers 'accountability'. It's appreciated.

I was referring more to the 'transparency' part of governance.

That linked thread was created to provide some clarity so that wouldn't be a repeat of previous events where assumptions and speculation became fever-pitched in the absence of awareness of what had happened (or not) during a period where many mods were inexcusable involved in their real lives

In this case, triggered by what I saw (an incomplete picture) and Ghost's thread praising the forum's solidarity, I just wanted to see the 'audit trail' (for want of a better term) so that I could decide for myself whether the banning was related to a breach of the rules or for expressing unfashionable opinions.